JUDGMENT Rakesh Tiwari, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
2. The petitioner has sought relief of quashing the order dated 17.6.2004 passed by the Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Varanasi Region, Varanasi appended as Annexure 10 to the writ petition.
3. It appears that the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 9642 of 2004, inter alia, that by punishment order dated 29.4.1999 his annual increment was stopped for a period of one year without future effect but in spite of expiry of the period of one ear, i.e., from 31.3.2000 his increments are not being given to him. The Court vide judgment dated 10.3.2004 directed the respondent to decide the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law from the date of submission of representation of the order. Consequently the Regional Manager passed the impugned order dated 17.6.2004.
4. By the impugned order the Regional Manager after considering the circumstances in which four enquiries had been conducted against the petition at different points of time for carrying passengers without tickets and misbehaviour with passengers in which the petitioner had been awarded punishment of withholding increments for one to four years. It held that during the period from 13.12.1993 to 29.4.1999 the petitioner had been awarded separate punishments which will come to an end on 31.3.2005 from the date of expiry of the punishment imposed by the last punishment order, i.e., 31.3.2000 and if the petitioner is not punished in any proceedings during this period, he shall be entitled to increments for the said period. For ready reference the relevant extract of the order is as under:
Is Prakar Dinank 31.12.1996 se 29.4.1999 Ke Beech Kul 5 (Paanch). Vetan Bridhi Roki Gayee Jo Poorva Me Diye Gaye Dandadesh Ke Samapti Ki Tithi Dinank 31.3.2000 Se Prarambha Hokar Dinank 31.3.2005 Ko Sampapta Hogi. Yadi Sri Rai Is Beech Kisi Prakaran Me Dandit Nahin Hote To Vetan Vridhi Pane Ke Adhikaria Honge.
5. The facts are that the terms and conditions of the employees of the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) are governed by the U.P. State Roadways Transport Corporation Employees (Other than Officers) Service Regulations, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations) framed under Section 45(2) of the U.P. State Roadways Transport Act.
6. The petitioner was appointed as a Conductor in the erstwhile U.P. State Roadways in 1969. His services were terminated on 16.2.1972 on charge of misconduct, but after a heart attack in 1997 he was posted to work as a Clerk in the office of the Assistant Regional Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C., Ghazipur, though his designation of Conductor was not changed. The pay scale of a Conductor in the Corporation is 3050-75-3500 besides D.A. and other allowances.
7. Four separate departmental proceedings had been initiated against the petitioner at different points of time under the aforesaid Regulations. These departmental proceedings culminated into four different punishment orders-
(a) Order dated 30.12.1992 passed for withholding the increments for four years without future effect (Annexure 1 to the writ petition).
(b) Order dated 31.12.1996 passed for withholding the increments for three years (Annexure 2 to the writ petition).
(c) Order dated 30.11.1997 passed for withholding the increment for one year (Annexure 3 to the writ petition).
(d) Order dated 29.4.1999 passed for withholding the increment for one year (Annexure 4 to the writ petition).
8. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that by the last order dated 17.6.2004 the disciplinary authority has ordered all the punishments to run consecutively. He further submits that in law all punishments take effect the moment they are passed by the disciplinary authority unless there is a rider attached thereto in this regard. He urges that from a perusal of all the aforesaid four orders of punishments, it is evident that the punishments had to take effect immediately. It is stated that since there was no order existing at that time passed by the disciplinary authority for keeping the punishments in abeyance, as such the is increments of the petitioner could be stopped only in accordance with the respective punishment orders.
9. The petitioner was punished in accordance with punishment orders whenever they were passed, hence the petitioner would be put in double jeopardy if punished twice as earlier he was punished by withholding all his increments and again by withholding his increments by the impugned order and it is stated that in the circumstances a fresh punishment was being inflicted by the disciplinary authority by means of the impugned order which could not have been passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
10. It is vehemently urged by him that there could be some justification to the order passed by the disciplinary authority if there was one disciplinary authority, but in the in that case four separate disciplinary departmental inquiries had been initiated and the punishment awarded should run concurrently and not consecutively. It is lastly submitted that when the order dated 29.4.1999 was passed for withholding the increments for one year the petitioner was already punished as his increments were withheld in accordance with the orders dated 30.12.1992, 31.12 1996 and 30.1.1997. The increments of the petitioner could be withheld only for one year and the petitioner in the circumstances was entitled to all his increments after 29.4.2000, i.e., after the expiry of the period of one year from 29.4.1999.
11. The petitioner has relied upon the Stephen's Commentary on the laws of England. 21st Edition, wherein it has been observed:
When a prisoner is convicted upon more than one indictment, or upon an indictment containing more than one count, his punishment may, in the discretion of the Court, be either concurrent or consecutive. If the former method is adopted, the periods run together, and the prisoner is discharged on the expiration of the longest period; but if the latter, the later periods only begin on, and us from the expiration of the earlier. Where it is not specifically stated that the later sentences are to be consecutive to the earlier, they are treated as being concurrent with it; and in practice, most sentences are pronounced to run concurrently. Consecutive sentences will, as a rule, only be awarded in respect of substantially different types of offences.
12. The learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner has been a habitual offender as is evident from various orders of punishments passed against him which relate to carrying passengers without tickets in order to embezzle Corporation's revenue. He submits that the Corporation has taken a lenient view against the petitioner as in these types of misconduct the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in a catena of decisions held that where a bus condactor is found to have committed similar misconduct, termination of services of the delinquent is the proper punishment. He further submits that even otherwise the petitioner has been found to commit misconduct on separate occasions for which disciplinary enquiry was conducted and separate orders for punishment had been passed. It is further submitted that it was not specified in the order of punishments that they would run concurrently as the petitioner had already undergone the punishment awarded to him at different points of time, hence the punishment would operate consecutively, as such the order has rightly been passed that the petitioner would be liable to increment in salary, if punishment is not awarded to the petitioner between the period 31.3.2000 and
13. He has relied upon the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In Regional Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C., Etawah and Ors. v. Hoti Lal and Anr. 2003 (2) A.W.C. 1070 (S.C.), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held:
If the charged employee holds a position of trust where honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of functioning, it would not be proper to deal with the matter leniently. Misconduct in such cases has to be dealt with both iron hands. Where the person deals win public money or is engaged in financial transactions or acts in a fiduciary capacity, highest degree of integrity and trustworthiness is a must and unexceptionable, judged in that background, conclusions of the Division Bench of the High Court do not appear to be proper.
14. The short point involved in this case is whether the punishments awarded to the petitioner would run concurrently or consecutively.
15. The disciplinary authority by the impugned order has decided the representation of the petitioner holding that the orders would run consecutively and end on 31.3.2005, as such if the petitioner is not punished in any proceedings from the date the punishment under the last order comes to an end, i.e., 31.3.2000 upto 31.3.2005, i.e., when the period of all the punishments awarded earlier added consecutively would come to an end, the petitioner would be entitled to the increments for the aforesaid periods.
16. The argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the orders of punishments for separate misconducts would run concurrently is untenable for the following reasons:
(a) The petitioner has been awarded punishment by separate orders for separate misconducts.
(b) The very basis of giving punishment, in criminal or service jurisprudence is deterrence/reform, earning thereby that each act of misconduct should be followed by a separate punishment which should not only act as a deterrent but also give an opportunity for reform. In such circumstances in case the petitioner's argument is accepted, it would strike at the very basis of the theory of awarding punishments, as for separate incidents of misconducts, the punishments would be clubbed together thereby not only reducing the deterrent aspect of punishment but also reducing the opportunity to reform.
(c) Normally for separate misconducts separate punishment orders are passed.
17. It appears from the punishment order dated 30.12.1992 that out of 29 passengers the petitioner had been found carrying 9 passengers without tickets which he has admitted and hence was guilty. By this order the increments of the petitioner were withheld for four years.
18. It further appears from order dated 31.12.1996 that out of 47 passengers 7 passengers were travelling without tickets. The petitioner did not reply to the charge sheet and as such the charges were found to be proved. The petitioner was awarded stoppage of increments for three years without future effect and an adverse entry was to be recorded in his service book. Both these punishments had been inflicted upon the petitioner separately.
19. From order dated 30.11.1997 it is evident that the petitioner was charged for committing misconduct with Smt. Rasoolan Bibi, wife of a Param Veer Chakra awardee. He was placed in one lower increment for a period of one year and an adverse entry was recorded in his service book for misbehaving with public lowering down the image of department.
20. Thereafter in order dated 29.4.1999 it was again found that in the bus conducted by the petitioner out of 75 passengers, 14 passengers were travelling without tickets for which disciplinary proceedings were taken against the petitioner though the Enquiry Officer found him not guilty. However, the disciplinary authority differed from the opinion of the Enquiry Officer and issued a show cause notice for the reasons given therein. The disciplinary authority found that despite travelling a good distance the petitioner had not issued tickets to the passengers and in these circumstances the petitioner was held guilty and was awarded stoppage of annual increment for one year without future effect. The petitioner has been awarded punishment for different misconducts committed by him at different points of time and not for the same incident of misconduct. He had already undergone the punishments awarded for different misconducts under all the orders of punishments dated 30.12.1992, 31.12.1996 and 29.4.1909. These punishment orders were passed on the charges of misconduct of carrying passengers without tickets. The orders stood exhausted.
21. In so far as the order dated 30.11.1997 is concerned, the petitioner was indicted on a different count i.e. misbehaviour with Rasoolan Bibi, a passenger in the bus conducted by the petitioner. Analogy in this regard may also be drawn from Section 427 I.P.C. for the purpose to ascertain as to when the punishment would run consecutively and when concurrently.
22. Therefore termination from services would have been the appropriate punishment, but as the petitioner has been awarded lesser punishment by the department by taking a lenient view the Court is not inclined to interfere in the quantum of punishments awarded to him.
23. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the opinion that the punishing authority has rightly concluded that the punishments in the case of the petitioner would run consecutively. As the period of punishments has already expired on 31.3.2000, the petitioner is entitled to the increments in accordance with the impugned order dated 17.6.2004.
24. For the reasons stated above the petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.